Order : 1. The present criminal revision petition has been filed by the accused- petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 of CrPC assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 07.10.2004 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baran (for short ‘the trial Court’) in Criminal Case No.21/2004, whereby the trial Court convicted the accused- petitioner for the offences punishable u/S 3/25 Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo one years’ simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/-. The petitioner had further challenged the aforesaid order/judgment dated 07.10.2004 passed by the trial Court by filing a Criminal Appeal bearing No.21/2004 before the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Baran (for short ‘the Appellate Court’), whereby the learned Court vide order dated 04.08.2005 had dismissed the appeal filed by the accused petitioner and affirmed the order passed by the trial Court. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist- petitioner submits that the sentence, so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner, was suspended by the Court vide its order dated 30.11.2005. The counsel, instead of challenging the order of conviction and sentence on merits, has made a limited prayer that looking to the period for which the petitioner has faced the trial and the further proceedings of criminal case, his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. six months and 25 days. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner. 4. Heard. Perused the record. 5. The trial Court had convicted the accused petitioner for offences u/S 3/25 of the Arms Act and has sentenced him to undergo one years’ simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- and the Appellate Court has affirmed the conviction and sentence. 6. For contravention of Section 3 of the Arms Act, the punishment is provided under sub-Section (1B) of Section 25 of the Arms Act, wherein the sentence provided is imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine. However, it has also been provided that the Court may for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than one year. However, it has also been provided that the Court may for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than one year. The minimum sentence as provided under sub-Section (1B) of one year has now been amended as two years by Act of 48 of 2019 w.e.f. 14.12.2019. 7. Since the present case relates to an incident of the year 2002, the minimum sentence applicable in the case would be one year. 8. Now it is to be seen whether there are adequate or special reasons for which the minimum sentence has been imposed upon the accused petitioner could be reduced to leas than one year and sentence of the accused petitioner could be modified to the sentence already undergone. 9. The present case pertains to the incident of 06.02.2002 when the age of the accused petitioner was only 20 years. The accused petitioner has faced the trial of the case from the year 2002 to 2004 and thereafter proceedings of appeal up to 2005 and the present revision petition for last 19 years. 10. When the offence was committed by the accused petitioner he was a very young aged boy of 20 years and till now he has already undergone sentence of six months and 25 days i.e. more than 50% of the sentence awarded to him. 11. No adverse report has also been brought out against the accused petitioner since after his conviction and sentence by the trial Court which shows the main purpose of convicting and sentencing an accused in the present case has been achieved, hence the accused petitioner has already undergone a reformation by not finding him involved in any other criminal case and there being no adverse report as regards his conduct in the society. 12. In Mohd. Firoz Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.612/2019, decided on 19.04.2022), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court, owing to the special facts & circumstances of the case, while reducing the sentence for offences under the relevant Section of the concerned Statute, observed as under:- “43………….we are reminded of what Oscar Wilde has said -“The only difference between the saint and the sinner is that every saint has a past and every sinner has a future”. One of the basic principles of restorative justice as developed by this Court over the years, also is to give an opportunity to the offender to repair the damage caused, and to become a socially useful individual, when he is released from the jail. The maximum punishment prescribed may not always be the determinative factor for repairing the crippled psyche of the offender.” (Emphasis supplied) This Court, therefore, observes, as is revealed hereinabove, that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Mohd. Firoz (supra), held that the Court may, in the interest of justice, reduce the sentence awarded to the accused. More so, this would be directed when the matter is an old one, and a deserving case at that, to reduce the sentence awarded to an accused person, to the time/sentence already served by him. Similarly, in special acts, with regard to the age/pendency of the matter, depending on the facts & circumstances of the case, this Court may deem it a fit case for applying the same aforementioned principle to reduce the sentence awarded to the period already undergone by him. 13. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the accused petitioner and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, this Court would like to invoke the proviso given below sub- Section (1B) of Section 25 of the Arms Act. Accordingly this revision petition is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence of the accused petitioner awarded by the trial Court vide judgment dated 07.10.2004 for the offence u/S 3/25 of the Arms Act and upheld by the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 04.08.2005 is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is not in judicial custody, thus, he need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. 14. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 15. Office is directed to send back the record of the trial Court.